Saturday, June 23, 2007

Democrats Support Canadian Troops

Last October, the Democrat Party had an article with picture on their web site, an article trashing Republicans and showing how much the Democrats love our military members. Interestingly enough, the picture they used was a Photoshopped picture of a Canadian soldier. Ouch.

Yesterday, Michelle Malkin reported (and showed a screen shot for proof) that Nancy Pelosi's own web page had a story about increasing veterans' funding--and the picture showed a Canadian soldier. I grant that the "Canada" written across the young woman's epaulet could have been a little hard to read, but that rank insignia and shirt color certainly aren't American.

Once was bad. Twice is pathetic. She's the Speaker of the House of Representatives, 2nd in line to the Presidency, and she can't even tell if a military uniform is American or not? Heck, I'm not asking her to be able to identify every military rank or army branch insignia or medals and ribbons and such. But is it too much to expect that a high-ranking American government official, when trying to toot her own horn about how much she's doing for American veterans, at least be able to tell that someone wearing a uniform component that says Canada on it probably isn't an American military member?

Heck, I like Canadians as much as the next guy. This isn't some anti-Canadian screed. No, let's target this right where idiocy lies--with leftie Americans who don't know anything about the military that's sworn to protect and defend the Constitution that allows those same leftie Americans to denigrate the military.

13 comments:

Mike
said...

Reading Col. Buzz Patterson's books, we find massive doses of anti-military vitriole from none other than she who would be president. Col. Patterson was one of the military officers who carried the nuclear "football" in the White House during the Clinton years. There can be no doubt whatsoever that Hillary currently hates and always has hated the military and anyone associated with it. Any support she has shown since her ascendance to her lofty perch as Senator has been cynical political calculation, not appreciation for our warriors or the vital role they play in securing freedom.

And Nancy Pelosi? Her only concern for the military is that they be at her beck and call to ferry her august personage and her kids and entourage wherever they'd like to fly at a moment's notice and on the taxpayer's dime. She is, you'll recall (unless I'm wrong on this point), from San Francisco, which is anything but friendly to the military. I don't suppose it would make any difference to her if the Canadian or US Air Force transported her to entreat with Islamic dictators, would it?

Such people are beneath contempt. It's stunning to realize that a significant portion of the electorate would seriously consider putting these people in charge of national security, let alone actually casting votes for them.

Sure, anonymous. Choose to believe that some rightie somewhere faked those pictures and screen shots. In psychology, we call that "transference" (I think). I know you lefties do that "faking" stuff all the time--but on the right, we generally don't do that.

Interesting that Michelle Malkin, who once made up a story that Max Cleland shot off his own limbs in Vietnam until MSNBC's Chris Matthews caught her in the lie and shot her down, would report this story and that it would be on FOX.

FOX doesn't support the American troops, let alone the Canadian troops.

FOX doesn't report the Iraq war, doesn't report the death count and doesn't tell stories about the young men and women who have died.

I come from a town that lost a soldier to roadside bomb in February.

FOX News has turned its back and quit on the American troops. Leave it to Michelle Malkin to post this kind of a report on Nancy Pelosi.

I think that the left has so many incompetent stooges in support roles that are hired on their ideology over their competence that the Democrats are suffering from internal collapse. When you apply random litmus tests for everyone involved, then you are bound to get kooks over professionals. I would like to think this is a rookie mistake, but I am willing to bet that whoever put the piece together for Pelosi didn't think Americans would notice the difference because they truly believe that "everyone" hold their political views.

Well now. Let's see where I went wrong. The post was about Democrat cluelessness on the military; did I get off the topic? No. Was I factually wrong? Hillary's hatred of the military is well known and voluminously reported, everything I said about Pelosi is also well documented, including her free lance, inept attempt at appeasment of a terrorist dictator, no problem there. I don't recall President Bush being mentioned in the original post, nor did the original post mention Republicans, except to note the Democrat trashing of same.

I could use a bit of clarification, if you have it handy. I do recall Michelle Malkin and a variety of others reporting on Mr. Cleland's injuries when Mr. Cleland was being represented by the Kerry Campaign (if memory serves) as a unassailable disabled war hero (absolute moral authority due to his injuries, as Cindy Sheehan had absolute moral authority due to the loss of her son). As I recall it, Ms. Malkin, and the others, pointed out that Mr. Cleland's injuries were a result of a tragic accident, whereby through his own lack of caution, he set off a grenade or grenades that caused his grevious wounds. Ms. Malkin did not ever suggest that he shot himself, or denigrate Mr. Cleland, just provided the facts--that he was not heroically, but accidentally wounded--about the incident that caused his injuries. As I also recall, Mr. Matthews, if I'm recalling the same segment, was so rude, abusive, and irrational in interviewing Ms. Malkin (she was asked to appear on Matthew's show for the express purpose of responding to Mr. Cleland) that he found himself in substantial hot water for some time thereafter. Other left of center figures expressed outrage that anyone would dare state the truth about Mr. Cleland's injuries, but no one ever refuted Ms. Malkin's (and other's) representation of the facts.

Regarding Fox News, I do recall that they covered this incident, particularly the O'Reilly Factor, in regard to Mr. Cleland and to Matthew's incredibly unprofessional and shabby treatment of Ms. Malkin.

And no, Fox news tends not to take sides. They are indeed far more "fair and balanced" as they term it, than virtually any other media outlet. The difference between Fox and the others is that Fox actually reports on the good news occuring in the Global War on Terror (and there is substantial good news each day), and does not generally report on each American death or about each bomb going off. If you think for a moment about this, I think you can see that this makes sense. After all, what is the news value in these headlines: "American Soldier Wounded;" "American Soldier Killed:" "Bomb Goes Off" during a war? During a war.

The answer is, of course that there is no news value in reporting a bomb going off during a war, or the death of a soldier, or 11 soldiers. Yes, the death of any American soldier is sad, but as a veteran, I can attest that each and every one of those soldiers volunteered for duty knowing that they might die for their country, but that they strove to do their best to win wars by, as General George Patton said, making the other poor bastard die for his.

Why then does the MSM--and generally not Fox News--report virtually every American death, every bomb that goes off? For the express purpose of making America look bad, and making themselves, they who are entirely caught up in a crazed desire for American defeat and humiliation, look wise. After all, if we win, the Media, and the Democrat Party, whose press releases often read, verbatim, like terrorist press releases, lose.

And I'm afraid you're incorrect as well in your assertion that Fox does not report on our soldiers and the war. I have, you see, actually seen their reports on those topics, and more than one. They simply don't dwell on explosions and body counts.

If any news organization can be said to be supportive of our troops, it is certainly Fox, and certainly not any of the other media outlets. You should coordinate more carefully with the left wing, which spends a great deal of its time denigrating Fox for its supposed support of America and of the war.

So, if I'm wrong about any of this, please do us all the favor of providing refutation that we can verify, won't you? If necessary, I'm quite sure I can verify everything I've said. How abou you?

No one reported that Max Cleland "shot off" his own limbs. He had an encounter with a hand grenade. Max Cleland served honorably in Vietnam. I served honorably in Vietnam. It is his policies that some disagreed with. The Left does not allow disagreement with their war heroes. If the fact that one of their candidates served in the military is of use to them they expect absolute acceptance of anything they say. That is Un-American. Dissent is honorable if it for the purpose of disagreeing with a policy. If it is political it is dishonorable.

“Ohnjaye said... Interesting that Michelle Malkin, who once made up a story that Max Cleland shot off his own limbs in Vietnam until MSNBC's Chris Matthews caught her in the lie and shot her down, would report this story and that it would be on FOX. “

Ohnjaye

I found this interesting so I did a little work on the internet. First I went on Youtube because you know if there was a time Malkin said that on Meet the Depressed or something like that, a leftist hack would put it on Youtube. No luck

Next, I Goggled this thing on Cleland and Malkin to see what came up. Here is the comments from the Chris Matthews show between Matthews and Malkin on Softball on MSN (The web site is http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5765243/ …this is a four page document)“MALKIN: Well, yes. Why don‘t people ask him more specific questions about the shrapnel in his leg. They are legitimate questions about whether or not it was a self-inflicted wound. MATTHEWS: What do you mean by self-inflicted? Are you saying he shot himself on purpose? Is that what you‘re saying? MALKIN: Did you read the book...MATTHEWS: I‘m asking a simple question. Are you saying that he shot himself on purpose.MALKIN: I‘m saying some of these soldiers... MATTHEWS: And I‘m asking question. MALKIN: And I‘m answering it. MATTHEWS: Did he shoot himself on purpose.MALKIN: Some of the soldiers have made allegations that these were self-inflicted wounds. MATTHEWS: No one has ever accused him of shooting himself on purpose. MALKIN: That these were self-inflicted wounds. MATTHEWS: Your saying there are—he shot himself on purpose, that‘s a criminal act? MALKIN: I‘m saying that I‘ve read the book and some of the... MATTHEWS: I want an answer yes or no, Michelle. MALKIN: Some of the veterans say...MATTHEWS: No. No one has every accused him of shooting himself on purpose.MALKIN: Yes. Some of them say that. MATTHEWS: Tell me where that... MALKIN: Self-inflicted wounds—in February, 1969. “

Again, I don’t see anything reference Max Cleland but John Kerry.

Now, there is one man who can question anyone as far as guts goes. Vote for him or not, Senator Bob Dole is a man who’s earned respect. In Italy 1944 LT Dole was injured and he had years of surgery to partially recover. He still has to carry something in his right hand to keep it steady. For that he got, count em, One Purple Heart. On one of the TV talk shows he asked of Senator Kerry simply “Three Purple Hearts and never bleed as far as I can tell?” A direct question he would like answered and he has more than earned the right to ask it.

Ohnjaye, try doing your homework before you get up here. If you can show us some evidence on this supposed Malkin attack on Senator Cleland, please put it forward and I’ll take this back. Otherwise, please just say you mistakenly accepted some false information as right.